The vehicle: Sailoat? Motorboat? Automobile? Truck? Airplane? Bob and Phil H/A/M? True Story? The time between Bob and Phil leaving, and Phil returning: Less than 15 minutes? Less than two hours? Less than one day? Less than one month? Did the oversight involve lack of preparation? Where they both passengers in the vehicle, or was one of the two piloting, driving, operating? Were Bob and Phil the only occupants of the vehicle during this trip? Did Bob's death happen inside the vehicle? Within 100 feet of the vehicle?

The vehicle: Sailoat? Motorboat? Automobile? this one Truck? Airplane? Bob and Phil H/A/M? yesTrue Story? yesThe time between Bob and Phil leaving, and Phil returning: Less than 15 minutes? Less than two hours? Less than one day? Less than one month? the story does not specify the time, could be hours, days...not really relevant Did the oversight involve lack of preparation? yesish Where they both passengers in the vehicle, or was one of the two piloting, driving, operating? yes, but not relevant which Were Bob and Phil the only occupants of the vehicle during this trip? yes Did Bob's death happen inside the vehicle? yes Within 100 feet of the vehicle? see above

Was cause of death to a crash? no Was this a commercially available automobile? yope Were they racing? no Attempting a speed record? no Were they driving on public roads? yes Off road? a bit of that too

Did Phil return driving the vehicle, or by some other means of transportation? Was Phil in the vehicle when Bob died? Where they road-testing the car? Was it a military vehicle? Did the car malfunction in some way? And that caused Bob's death?

Did Phil return driving the vehicle, this or by some other means of transportation? Was Phil in the vehicle when Bob died? yes Where they road-testing the car? no Was it a military vehicle? no Did the car malfunction in some way? noish, the car did not 'break' And that caused Bob's death?

Did Phil and Bob both work for the agency that owned the vehicle? are they in law enforcement? judicial? political office? or is their field of employment just a government funded/subsidized one, that is not governmental per se (e.g. public education, postal service, etc.)?

Did Phil and Bob both work for the agency that owned the vehicle? yes are they in law enforcement? yes, but specialized judicial? political office? or is their field of employment just a government funded/subsidized one, that is not governmental per se (e.g. public education, postal service, etc.)? no

Were they in security? They were not security guards, no Were they trying to protect something specific? not an item or person you could identify. scope more general Were they trying to protect someone specific? Such as a government leader? no to both

RECAP (by request) The vehicle is an SUV. It is commercially available, but there are modifications to the vehicle that are not available through the dealer, but might be commercially available. Bob and Phil are H/A/M in law enforcement who work together for the agency that owns the vehicle and this is a true story. The time between Bob and Phil leaving and Phil returning is not specified in the story and is not really relevant, but let’s say less than one day. Both Bob and Phil were in the car (and only them). One of them was driving, but not relevant which one. Bob died inside the vehicle.

The oversight did involve a little lack of preparation. Bob was not killed by a crash. They were not racing or attempting a speed record. They were driving on public roads and a bit of off-road (but could be misleading). They were not road-testing the car and it is not a military vehicle. The car did not malfunction or break. The value of the vehicle is sort of relevant in that it indicates the car has been modified at great expense.

Phil returned driving the vehicle and was in the car when Bob died, but Phil did not kill Bob. Bob did not suffer from an allergy. The air conditioning, heating, windows, GPS, radio and other means of entertainment functions of the car are not relevant, but the locks are relevant.

Bob’s cause of death is relevant and it was murder. The murderer was not in the vehicle with Bob. It was not a political assassination, but may have been a gang murder (but not particularly relevant). There was a time when Bob was locked in the vehicle and there was a time when he was not.

The vehicle belongs to a yet undiscovered government agency (not the armed forces) and was modified by Homeland Security, and was not a rental. The vehicle was yopishly sabotaged but was not a refrigerated vehicle and was not primarily used for transporting prisoners. The vehicle was not used for animals. The vehicle is not a police cruiser, firetruck or ambulance. Bob and Phil are not involved with a specialized judicial organization, political office, public education, postal service, or FBI but are government. Bob and Phil were not driving a “bait” car and were not security guards.

impact electric shock the other kind of shock laceration suffocation or asphyxiation burning freezing heart attack allergies drowning explosion radiation poison a psionic death ray that would be coollaughing to death other this one ?

Additionally:

strangulation? sharp force? like a knife or glass? no

Did the murderer realize that the vehicle belonged to the relevant agency? I'm going to say yes, but it is possible that they did not Did the incredibly expensive modifications give this away? No, I don't thing the modifications are obvious Was the murder intentionally carried out for this reason? no

To clarify--I meant was the murder carried out because the murderer realized that Bob worked for the organization? (NOT whether the murder happened because of the modifications, except to the extent that the modifications may have revealed who Bob was)

If not, would the murderer have attacked anyone driving where Bob and Phil were? Did he intend to murder Phil too, but Phil managed to escape?

Was he crushed? Beaten to death? Was air in any way involved in his death? none of these

To clarify--I meant was the murder carried out because the murderer realized that Bob worked for the organization? yes (NOT whether the murder happened because of the modifications yope , except to the extent that the modifications may have revealed who Bob was) no

If not, would the murderer have attacked anyone driving where Bob and Phil were? I'm going to say this is possible, but misleading Did he intend to murder Phil too, but Phil managed to escape? yes

Is your answer misleading because strangers would generally not be where Bob and Phil were? No, strangers do go there like, for example, in some secret weapons facility? nothing so grand

Were the modifications to the vehicle some sort of armor? yes sensors (e.g. radar)? could be weaponry? no enhancements to maneuverability and/or versatility (for example the ability to float on water)? probably nothing so fantastic as this

Was Bob shot? Stabbed? Strangulated? Did the murderer open the door? Damage the vehicle? Remote control locking relevant? Did Bob know someone was going to kill him before it happened? Did he try to lock the door?

Was Bob shot? This one Stabbed? Strangulated? Did the murderer open the door? yes Damage the vehicle? yes Remote control locking relevant? no, but on the right track Did Bob know someone was going to kill him before it happened? I suppose technically he did, but I would say he did not begin the day expecting to die Did he try to lock the door? very likely Great questions!

Did the vehicle have a sophisticated locking system? no, but you are on the right track Had they disabled it? no Failed to do something they should have done in order for it to work? rephrase and specify who 'they' is

If the car had functioned as the people doing the modifications intended, should the murderer have been able to open the door and shoot Bob? no. good question!

OK, "they" are Bob and Phil: did they fail to follow one or more steps in the procedure for enabling some hugely expensive special feature of the car which, had it been fully enabled, would have saved Bob? I was thinking that maybe the feature, whatever it was, perhaps made some kind of noise, or meant that you couldn't have the windows open or something, so they didn't use it because it was mildly inconvenient. Anything like this?

Did the vehicle have a special anti-intruder feature? Was it supposed to detect intruders and prevent them from intruding?

OK, "they" are Bob and Phil: did they fail to follow one or more steps in the procedure for enabling some hugely expensive special feature of the car which, had it been fully enabled, would have saved Bob? no. try a different 'they' I was thinking that maybe the feature, whatever it was, perhaps made some kind of noise, or meant that you couldn't have the windows open or something, so they didn't use it because it was mildly inconvenient. Anything like this? no, Bob and Phil did what they were supposed to do

Did the vehicle have a special anti-intruder feature? no, but... Was it supposed to detect intruders and prevent them from intruding? no

Is the "they" the people who invented? or installed? the expensive feature? Did they design/implement the feature incompetently? Was the feature specifically for preventing unwanted people from entering the vehicle? or was it intended to protect against damage by anything whatsoever (humans, projectiles, flying debris, etc.)?

Is the "they" the people who invented? or installed? yes the expensive feature? more than one, but yes Did they design/implement the feature incompetently? no Was the feature specifically for preventing unwanted people from entering the vehicle? yes or was it intended to protect against damage by anything whatsoever (humans, projectiles, flying debris, etc.)? no

Was the feature something that could be enabled or disabled by an occupant of the vehicle? Was it meant to be permanently enabled? Could it be operated from outside the vehicle?

If the feature was functioning correctly, and an unelcome intruder tried to get into the car, would he be unable to get in but otherwise unaffected? Would he be injured? Killed? Given an electric shock? Immobilised?

Did "they" fail to include one or more parts? Install one or more parts incorrectly? Was the feature electronic? mechanical? computerised? Did they neglect to do something? Or do something incorrectly?

Was the feature something that could be enabled or disabled by an occupant of the vehicle? no Was it meant to be permanently enabled? yes Could it be operated from outside the vehicle? no

If the feature was functioning correctly, and an unelcome intruder tried to get into the car, would he be unable to get in but otherwise unaffected? yes Would he be injured? no Killed? no Given an electric shock? no Immobilised? no

Did "they" fail to include one or more parts? no Install one or more parts incorrectly? no Was the feature electronic? yes mechanical? no. it was electronic but involved operating something mechanical computerised? most likely Did they neglect to do something? yes Or do something incorrectly? no

For the intended occupant(s) to bypass the feature and gain entry, would they need a key? a code? some form of biometric ID (e.g. a fingerprint)?

Was the security device not working because it was not receiving electrical power? because it was not able to control whatever mechanism, e.g. a latch, that prevented the door from opening? because it was mis-programmed? because the intruder happened to have the required thing to get in (a copy of a key, ability to guess a code, etc.)?

For the intended occupant(s) to bypass the feature and gain entry, would they need a key? no a code? no some form of biometric ID (e.g. a fingerprint)? no

Was the security device not working because it was not receiving electrical power? incorrect because it was not able to control whatever mechanism, e.g. a latch, that prevented the door from opening? no because it was mis-programmed? yope because the intruder happened to have the required thing to get in (a copy of a key, ability to guess a code, etc.)? no

Had an essential step in the programming been omitted? Did the feature have some way of distinguishing an unwelcome intruder from someone who had a right to be in the vehicle? Did the murderer work for the same organisation as Bob and Phil? Did Bob and Phil know about the security feature? Would it have made any difference if they had? If they hadn't? Did the feature work by locking the doors in the event of an intruder attempting to gain entry? Doing something else?

Had an essential step in the programming been omitted? it was more like they forgot to add it Did the feature have some way of distinguishing an unwelcome intruder from someone who had a right to be in the vehicle? no Did the murderer work for the same organisation as Bob and Phil? no Did Bob and Phil know about the security feature? that it should be there, yes Would it have made any difference if they had? see aboveIf they hadn't? possibly Did the feature work by locking the doors in the event of an intruder attempting to gain entry? no Doing something else? no

HINT: The security feature does not react to anything, if operating properly, it operates in conjuction with what would be considered routine car operations

So when the intended occupant of the vehicle gets in, the feature would not have been operating yet (even if it had worked as intended)? Was it intended to begin to operate when the doors were locked? when the engine was started?

In which of the following ways was the expensive mechanism superior to an ordinary car door lock: it provided additional physical strength to the door or window, to prevent it from being smashed or pried? it could be locked without the occupants having to take any action (I know some regular car locks work kind of like this, so I doubt this is it)? the door was in two layers, so breaking through one would leave the other in the intruder's way?

So when the intended occupant of the vehicle gets in, the feature would not have been operating yet (even if it had worked as intended)? yes Was it intended to begin to operate when the doors were locked? when the engine was started? no to both, but explore

In which of the following ways was the expensive mechanism superior to an ordinary car door lock: it provided additional physical strength to the door or window, to prevent it from being smashed or pried? no it could be locked without the occupants having to take any action (I know some regular car locks work kind of like this, so I doubt this is it)? this is close, but not quite right the door was in two layers, so breaking through one would leave the other in the intruder's way? no

HINT: While there are expensive modifications made to this car, the modification in question is minor with respect to cost.

Was the feature intended to operate when the car was stationary? Moving? Moving below a certain speed? Above a certain speed? Was it desgined to operate when the windows were closed? Open? When seatbelts were fastened?

Was the feature intended to operate when there was nobody in the vehicle? If the feature had been working correctly, and Phil and Bob had stopped off for a coffee and locked the car normally, and someone had tried to break into the car, would the extra feature have prevented this intruder where a normal locking system would not?

Was the feature intended to operate when the car was stationary? yes Moving? no Moving below a certain speed? see above Above a certain speed? see above Was it desgined to operate when the windows were closed? no Open? no When seatbelts were fastened? no

Was the feature intended to operate when there was nobody in the vehicle? no If the feature had been working correctly, and Phil and Bob had stopped off for a coffee and locked the car normally, and someone had tried to break into the car, would the extra feature have prevented this intruder where a normal locking system would not? no

Was it intended to operate whenever the vehicle was stationary but had the engine running?

If so, did it "judge" whether or not the vehicle was moving using the wheels? The gears? The brakes? Some part of the engine?

Did the feature fail because the installers had forgotten to include a detail in the programme relating to the time? the date? some information it received via one or more of the moving parts of the car?

Was it intended to operate whenever the vehicle was stationary but had the engine running? no

If so, did it "judge" whether or not the vehicle was moving using the wheels? The gears? explore this The brakes? Some part of the engine? see above

Did the feature fail because the installers had forgotten to include a detail in the programme relating to the time? the date? some information it received via one or more of the moving parts of the car? this one

Did the car have manual transmission? Automatic? Is this significant? Did the programmers assume the car was an automatic when in fact it wasn't? Was the feature designed to work in "park" mode, or whatever it is called on an automatic car, but didn't work on this car because there wasn't a "park" setting? Or the other way round? Was it designed to work in neutral but not programmed to work in "park"?

Did the car have manual transmission? Automatic? this one Is this significant? yes Did the programmers assume the car was an automatic when in fact it wasn't? no Was the feature designed to work in "park" mode, yes, when put in "park". Think about this. or whatever it is called on an automatic car, but didn't work on this car because there wasn't a "park" setting? no Or the other way round? Was it designed to work in neutral but not programmed to work in "park"? no

If the feature was designed to work when in "park", does that mean it was not designed to work in any other mode? Was it designed to work in neutral? Is the oversight not to programme it to work in "park"? Did the programmers think they had programmed it correctly?

Is the appearance of the [insert word for the automatic equivalent of a gearstick] relevant? The letter P? Did the programmers mistake P for D and programme the feature only to work in "drive"?

If the feature was designed to work when in "park", does that mean it was not designed to work in any other mode? yes Was it designed to work in neutral? no Is the oversight not to programme it to work in "park"? HINT: the oversight is they should have programmed it to not work at all Did the programmers think they had programmed it correctly? no, they forgot about it

Is the appearance of the [insert word for the automatic equivalent of a gearstick] relevant? no The letter P? no Did the programmers mistake P for D and programme the feature only to work in "drive"? no

Are you saying that the programmers shouldn't have programmed it to work at all, but they did? no, it comes from the factory programmed to work And that they forgot that they shouldn't have programmed it? no

Is the problem that most of the time a car is in "park", the ignition is also turned off? Was the wiring to the device such that it was not powered with the ignition off? so therefore the program would rarely be running by the time the truck was put into "park"?

Is the problem that most of the time a car is in "park", the ignition is also turned off? no, but "park" is very important Was the wiring to the device such that it was not powered with the ignition off? no so therefore the program would rarely be running by the time the truck was put into "park"? no

Is the fact that "Park" looks a bit like "Dark" relevant? Had it been programmed to work in the dark?

Assuming not, if the feature comes from the factory programmed to work, does that mean that it was the programmers in the factory who committed the oversight? Or were the expensive security modifications added by different programmers?

Is the fact that "Park" looks a bit like "Dark" relevant? no Had it been programmed to work in the dark? Like cough medicine, it doesn't care what time it is (inside joke)

Assuming not, if the feature comes from the factory programmed to work, does that mean that it was the programmers in the factory who committed the oversight? no Or were the expensive security modifications added by different programmers? yes

In order for Bob not to have been killed, should the expensive security programmers have disabled the feature while they made their modifications and then reenabled it when they had finish? Or should they have left it disabled?

Did one or more of the other security features these programmers added interfere with the locking system? The gearbox? Some other part of the car which was involved in the locking system?

In order for Bob not to have been killed, should the expensive security programmers have disabled the feature while they made their modifications and then reenabled it when they had finish? no Or should they have left it disabled? yes

Did one or more of the other security features these programmers added interfere with the locking system? no The gearbox? no Some other part of the car which was involved in the locking system? no

If the safety feature had been permanently disabled, would Bob have been able to leave the car? To shoot back? To drive away? Did the safety feature make a certain action impossible? Make it take more time? Is it relevant why Phil was not killed? Or was that just a coincidence?

If the safety feature had been permanently disabled, would Bob have been able to leave the car? yes, but... To shoot back? yes, but... To drive away? this too, explore Did the safety feature make a certain action impossible? no Make it take more time? yes, but misleading Is it relevant why Phil was not killed? no Or was that just a coincidence? yes

Does the SUV have bullet proof glass? And automatic window controls? Roll-up windows? And the organization forgot to disable the window controls? Bob bumped the button and with 1 touch rolled down the safety feature?

Does the SUV have bullet proof glass? yes And automatic window controls? unknown but presumeably Roll-up windows? yes And the organization forgot to disable the window controls? no Bob bumped the button and with 1 touch rolled down the safety feature? no. Explore the locks some more

Did the safety feature work for driver door? yes Passenger door? yes Did the safety feature lock the door after a certain time after turning the engine on? no Or turning it off? no, but you are very close. explore further

Do the doors lock if they key is not in the ignition? Or not in the car? Does the safety feature do anothing relevant except controlling the door locks? Does it override a manual control? Were the keys locked in the car? Or locked out from the car?

Do the doors lock if they key is not in the ignition? no Or not in the car? no Does the safety feature do anothing relevant except controlling the door locks? no Does it override a manual control? yesish Were the keys locked in the car? no Or locked out from the car? no

Is there a time delay involved until the safety feature kicks in? Is the car in park when the murder happens? Was the door supposed to be locked, but wasn't? Had they locked the door, and the safety feature unlocked it? Or did it prevent them from locking the door? Does the feature get any other input besides knowing if the car is in park or not?

Is there a time delay involved until the safety feature kicks in? no Is the car in park when the murder happens? yes, this is very important Was the door supposed to be locked, but wasn't? yes Had they locked the door, and the safety feature unlocked it? yes Or did it prevent them from locking the door? no Does the feature get any other input besides knowing if the car is in park or not? no. Good Questions!

So they were driving around with the doors locked, they parked the car, the doors automatically unlocked and a guy was able to get in and kill one of them? Is this correct? Is there more to the story? Did they park because they were being attacked?

So they were driving around with the doors locked, they parked the car, the doors automatically unlocked and a guy was able to get in and kill one of them? yes Is this correct? yes Is there more to the story? no Did they park because they were being attacked? yes. $p0ylur to follow...

******* SPOILER ******* U.S. Immigration agents in a $160,000 Chevy Suburban that had been custom-designed and -armored specifically to protect agents from roadside kidnappings became sitting ducks last year when kidnappers forced the vehicle off the road near San Luis Potosi, Mexico, and got the door open briefly, enabling them to fire 100 rounds and kill one of the two agents inside. According to a February Washington Post report, the Department of Homeland Security had failed to modify the vehicle's factory setting that popped open the door locks automatically whenever the driver shifts into "Park." [Washington Post, 2-13-2012] Thanks for all the great questions and thanks to Galfisk for putting it all together!!

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username:

Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.